Remember George Orwell’s ‘Ministry of Truth’? Orwell, meet Joe Biden’s ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

Share:

The following includes commentary reflecting the opinion of the author. 

WASHINGTON, DC- If you are familiar with George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984, you may recall the existence of a so-called “Ministry of Truth.” George Orwell, meet Joe Biden. Remember when liberals were concerned about Donald Trump becoming a dictator? Little did they know that the real dictator was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, otherwise known as Joe Biden.

According to PJ Media, the Biden administration under the Department of Homeland Security is creating a modern-day version of the Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as the “Disinformation Governance Board.” If that doesn’t send chills down your spine, nothing will.

One need only look at what has been called “disinformation” in the past to realize how dangerous this new agency is.

Remember the so-called “wet market” in Wuhan, China that the CDC and other mouthpieces claimed was the source of the Wuhan China virus? Do you remember when some suggested the possibility that the virus emanated not from a wet market but from a lab in Wuhan? They were accused of disinformation.

Do you remember when the existence of Hunter Biden’s laptop was revealed just weeks before the 2020 election, which was called “Russian disinformation” by 50 so-called “intelligence experts?” Despite troves of evidence to the contrary, it wasn’t until recently that the alleged “legacy” media such as the New York Times and the Washington Post admitted the veracity of the laptop?

How about the Russia collusion hoax, where a scheme was hatched by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of colluding with Russia to rig the 2016 election? Once again, despite a pile of evidence to the contrary, Trump’s claim of the claims being a hoax were summarily dismissed. More “disinformation,” allegedly.

Now do you see how dangerous this is? The definition of “disinformation” depends on who is making the decision as to how that is defined.

According to Politico:

DHS is standing up a new Disinformation Governance Board to coordinate countering misinformation related to homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia. Nina Jankowicz will head the board as executive director. She previously was a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright Public Policy Fellowship and oversaw Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.

So what exactly is “irregular migration?” And what “disinformation” related to Russia is the administration concerned about?

The announcement of the ministry of truth was announced Wednesday by feckless DHS secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a House Appropriations DHS Subcommittee hearing. Mayorkas was asked about allegations that blacks and Hispanic Americans are being “heavily targeted” for disinformation. Mayorkas replied:

Our Undersecretary for Policy, Rob Silvers, is co-chair with our Principal Deputy General Council Jennifer Daskal, in leading a just recently constituted misinformation, disinformation governance board.

The goal is tor bring the resources of the department together to address this threat. I just read a very interesting study that underscores the importance of the point that you make, of the spread of mis and disinformation in minority communities specifically and we’re focused on that.

So riddle us this. What exactly do Russia and irregular migration “disinformation” have to do with minority communities? It almost seems like the administration believes minority communities are incapable of sorting through information and deciding what is and isn’t “disinformation.”

The board will be headed by Jankowicz, a true swamp rat if there ever was one and according to PJ Media has an “extensive, swampy background in the area of ‘disinformation’ as well as the geopolitical interface between Russia and Europe. Her biography for Syracuse University, where she serves as an adjunct professor reads in part:

Jankowicz’s expertise spans the public, private, and academic sectors. She has advised governments, international organizations, and tech companies; testified before the United States Congress and European Parliament; and led accessible, actionable research about the effects of disinformation on women, minorities, democratic activists, and freedom of expression around the world.

Jankowicz has extensive media experience, with writing published in many major American newspapers and magazines, including the [all liberal] New York Times, The Washington Post and The Atlantic. She is a regular guest on major radio programs [all liberal] such as the PBS Newshour, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS and Amanpour, the BBC World Service, and NPR’s All Things Considered.

As PJ Media notes, the leftists appear to be concerned about ensuring black and Hispanic Americans being exposed to anything that doesn’t toe the Democratic Party line.

Jankowicz’s bio continues, noting that she advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry in 2016-17 on disinformation and strategic communications as part of a Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship. Clinton? Interesting.

Jankowicz also “managed democracy assistance programs to Russia and Belarus at the National Democratic Institute.” What could possibly go wrong? Someone with deep ties with Ukraine deciding what does and doesn’t constitute “disinformation,” despite the Biden family’s deep ties to Ukraine.

PJ Media noted Jankowicz has written two books, How to Lose the Information War and How to Be A Woman Online. She apparently also doesn’t like men, or in leftist parlance “non-birthing persons.” Well, except for the “pregnant” male emoji on iPhones. In a pinned tweet hawking her second book, Jankowicz writes:

“Men ‘burst violently into your mentions and your life like the Kool-aid man, demanding your attention, hawking opinions that they believe are unarguably, manifestly correct and indispensable.”

Jankowicz tweeted her new role on Wednesday:

In an amazing case of unadulterated BS, Jankowicz added:

“…a HUGE focus of our work, and indeed, one of the key reasons the Board was established, is to maintain the Dept’s committment [sic] to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties.”

First of all she apparently cannot spell. Secondly, the so-called “Ministry of Truth” is going to be protecting free speech. Especially for the right, correct?

This seems to be a stepping up of attempts by the Biden administration to stomp on speech they disagree with, which they continually refer to as “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Up until now, the administration worked hand-in-hand with the media and tech platforms to implement a quasi-ministry of truth. Now they have actually created such a board.

Should conservatives be concerned? Jack Posobiec of Turning Point, USA uncovered a couple of Jankowicz’s old tweets:

“Trump speech is definitely the most presidential thing he’s ever done, but still missing a disavowal of disinformation and conspiracy theories.

And once again for the people in the back: the ‘free speech vs censorship’ framing is a false dichotomy.”

And another:

“Considering the long-term damage these lies do to our democracy, I’m dismayed about this decision.

I say this about foreign disinformation and it applies to domestic disinfo too:

Elections aren’t an end point. They’re an inflection point. Policies need to reflect that.”

She also weighed in on Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell:”

“Back on the ‘laptop from hell,’ apparently—Biden notes 50 former natsec officials and 5 former CIA heads that believe the laptop is a Russian influence op.

Trump says ‘Russia, Russia, Russia.’

Does anyone thing for a moment this woman will act in a nonpartisan manner when deciding what does and does not constitute so-called “disinformation?”

https://fundourpolice.com/

For more on dystopian proposals from Democrats to control speech, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

The editorial comments in this article are brought to you by a former chief of police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

ALBANY, NY- This is precisely what George Orwell prophesied about in the book 1984.

In New York, where the Democrat-controlled legislature is clearly out of control, a bill has been proposed, according to Conservative Playlist, which would criminalize the promotion of content that “includes a false statement of fact or fraudulent medical theory that is likely to endanger the safety or health of the public.”

That of course depends on who (or what federal agency) is deciding what is “fact” and what is not.

On Dec. 3, New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman introduced S7568, and doubled-down on promoting it this wee, Claiming it would “Hold Tech Companies Accountable for Promoting Vaccine Misinformation & Hate Speech on Social Media.”

The legislation has not yet advanced from committee, is designed to “focus[es] on the active choices these companies make when implementing algorithms designed to promote the most controversial and harmful content,” Hoylman’s office said.

Hoylman only spoke about the alleged use of social media to “plan a riot at the U.S. Capitol,” while ignoring groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter, who routinely used platforms such as Twitter in 2020 to conduct riots in cities across the United States.

Because clearly, his bill is designed to punish political opponents of Democrats.

It’s also of course about so-called “anti-vaccine falsehoods,” which apparently includes publishing data from the CDC’s VAERS website, for which Twitter just banned the account of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

Apparently, the only “data” which is acceptable for the tech tyrants and Democrats is that which furthers their tyrannical objectives.

Hoylman’s office claims that prioritizing such content “has real life costs to public health and safety. So when social media push anti-vaccine falsehoods and help domestic terrorists plan a riot at the U.S. Capitol, they must be held accountable.”

Under the proposed legislation, New York’s attorney general and lawyers for New York municipalities would be able to bring either state or federal lawsuits to punish violations, as well as by individuals, businesses and associations harmed by alleged violations to sue for damages.

While the bill “appears” to target social media companies and their algorithms, the bill would also apply to individuals who post content deemed “likely to endanger” the public. This is chilling.

That wasn’t lost on Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor, who referred to Hoylman’s rationale for the legislation as “perfectly Orwellian. It treats the failure to censor as being a participant in ‘disinformation.’” Turley called Hoylman’s press release a “mix of algorithmic conspiracy theory and anti-free speech doublespeak.”

In a blog post, the highly-respected Turley wrote that Hoylman’s bill would criminalize whatever is believed to be false at the time, “despite the continuing debates over issues like the efficacy of masks or vaccine protocols. Absurd claims of the law or science” are far less dangerous than “rising levels of censorship,” he wrote.

Even George Orwell wouldn’t believe how prophetic he was all those years ago.

Two men arrested and charged with the attempted murder of a Chicago cop after shooting him during a traffic stop

Sadly, there are people in our country who actually support the stifling of free speech. For a prior report on that, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

 

PHILADELPHIA, PA – College students on campuses across the United States are expressing more support for limiting free expression and 23% support the use of violence to silence those who disagree with their beliefs.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group that supports free speech in institutions of higher education, published its 2021 College Free Speech Rankings on Tuesday. The report examined the free speech climate by gathering opinions from more than 37,000 students of 159 of “Americas largest and more prestigious campuses,” according to FIRE.

Schools were ranked in the report by how students responded to questions assessing their ability to openly discuss topics such as race, gender, and politics, and whether the ability to express their thoughts was controlled or limited by peer pressure.

The report considers the varied dimensions of free expression on campus, from the ability to discuss challenging topics like race, gender dynamics, and geo-political conflicts, to whether students hold back from openly sharing their views.

The schools were then ranked by how favorable the students said the free speech environment was on their campus.

The rankings are designed to help students and parents make enrollment decisions and score the overall speech climate on each campus, according to FIRE.

FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley explained:

“Existing ranking systems don’t look at a core aspect of higher education: the ability to think, discuss, and speak freely.

“Our rankings guide prospective students and their parents toward schools that value free speech and open inquiry. They also help us hold schools accountable and demand they do better.”

The report found that five schools topped the list for creating a supportive environment for free speech (in order):

  1. Claremont McKenna College
  2. University of Chicago
  3. University of New Hampshire
  4. Emory University
  5. Florida State University

The five worst schools for creating a supportive environment for speech (in order):

  1. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  2. Boston College
  3. Louisiana State University
  4. Marquette University
  5. DePauw University

FIRE Senior Research Counsel Adam Goldstein said:

“There are fundamental questions that every student should want answered before committing to a college. The value of higher education comes from developing a fuller understanding of the world by asking questions that challenge the status quo.

“ A college that won’t clearly protect your right to ask those questions is a bad deal, even if it boasts small class sizes or a fancy stadium.”

https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1440398158131982349

More shocking than the report’s rankings were the supplemental findings, which indicate students are more prepared to censor free speech and to use violence to accomplish silencing dissent.

More than 80% of students report self-censoring their viewpoints at their colleges at least some of the time, with 21% saying they censor themselves often.

A staggering 66% of students report some level of acceptance for speaker shout-downs (up 4 percentage points from FIRE’s 2020 report) and 23% consider it acceptable for people to use violence to stop certain speech (up 5 percentage points).

Two elite women’s colleges, Wellesley College and Barnard College, top this list, supporting the use of violence at 45% and 43% respectively, according to the report.

Only a third of students say that their college administration makes it either very or extremely clear that they will protect free speech on campus.

Sean Stevens, FIRE senior research fellow for polling and analytics, said the schools’ administrations set free speech standards at schools:

“The research is clear, and our experience working with these schools confirms it: Much of the campus climate for expression is determined by the administration.

“Staking out a leadership position on free speech and open debate resonates with students and has a real effect on a campus’ climate for free expression.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Social media platforms should be regulated with free speech

April 5, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C.- During fall 2020, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that it was time to rein in Section 230 immunity and now he is laying out an argument for why companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google should be regulated as public utilities.

He has argued that these social media platforms may not have a First Amendment right to regulate user commentary on their platforms. On Monday, April 5th, the Supreme court vacated a lower court ruling in finding that President Donald Trump had acted unconstitutionally by blocking people on Twitter.

That specific case, which the justices deemed moot, hinged on the idea that the @realdonaldtrump account was a public forum run by the president of the United States and therefore was constitutionally prohibited from stifling private speech.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas agreed with the decision, but argued that Twitter’s recent ban of the @realdonaldtrump account suggests that it’s platforms themselves, not the government officials on them, that hold all the power.

In a 12-page opinion, Justice Thomas weighed in on the issue. He wrote:

“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.

We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

Thomas’s opinion could be seen as an invitation for rules that could force social media platforms to host all customers regardless of their views.

He also stated that Section 230, a shield for internet companies, underscores the role they play as common carriers in contravention of 20 years of legal precedent and other existing rulings as it pertains to businesses’ speech rights.

On Twitter’s decision to block Trump, Justice Thomas said a previous appeals court ruling that Trump’s account was a public forum and had some merit. However, he added that Twitter’s blocking of Trump undermined that conclusion. He wrote:

“Any control Mr. Trump exercised over the account greatly paled in comparison to Twitter’s authority, dictated in its terms of service, to remove the account at any time for any or no reason. Twitter exercised its authority to do exactly that.”

The U.S. House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that could strip Section 230 protections that provide a liability shield for technology companies.

In recent years, those protections have come under fire and Thomas’s opinion echoes common conservative complaints about tech platforms censoring their viewpoints.

In his opinion, Thomas wrote:

“…Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech.

When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the internet and users rarely do, Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time.”

He added:

“It can suppress content by de-indexing or down-listing a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results. Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means.”  

 

 

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts